Monthly Archives: March 2013

Logic–Fox News Style

My husband was doing the “guy thing,” clicking the remote through a series of channels. He paused for a roundtable discussion on Fox; we were both somewhat startled because the participants were praising a report aired by NPR. Evidently, NPR had been criticized by Media Matters, and they were engaging in the time-honored tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is suddenly my friend.” Those participating in the roundtable used the attack to launch into a group chorus to the effect that “the liberal media” are all hopelessly biased.

With the exception of a kind word for NPR, it was a pretty predictable Fox rant. But then….(drumroll, please)…the discussion turned to CNN and its purported  liberal bias. One of the talking heads dismissed the insistence of a CNN executive to the effect that the network was neither Right nor Left– that its mission is simply to report the news. Her “evidence” that CNN was a “liberal” outlet was that they often reported the same news as MSNBC.

It evidently never occurred to her that two descriptions of newsworthy objective reality might turn out to be similar. Or that real journalists report on events even when those events tend to cast doubt on their preferred view of reality.

Or that sometimes, reality itself has a “liberal bias.”

Comments

Born That Way

There is a relatively recent internet site called “Upworthy,” that culls videos from around the web that the site’s managers deem worthy of a wider audience (they’r “UpWorthy”) and promotes them. This morning, I saw one of them–a clip from comedian Wanda Sykes in which she explains why it is more difficult to be gay than to be black (she’s both). After all, she didn’t have to “come out” as black. I encourage you to click through and watch this 2 minute performance; Sykes is a gifted comic, and it is pretty funny.

The bit reminded me of an epiphany of sorts. When I was Director of the Indiana ACLU, I hosted a small fundraising dinner at my home for our Project for Equal Rights. We used that euphemism for Gay Rights, because it was the mid-1990s, and this is Indiana. At any rate, the guest of honor was the then-head of the ACLU’s national gay rights project, Bill Rubenstein. Something he said during that dinner  has remained with me ever since.

Gay kids have no role models.

Virtually every minority group teaches its children how to “be” what they are; Jewish parents model “Jewishness,” Hispanic parents are a bridge to the cultures from which they came, etc. But gay children are born to heterosexual parents–and most often, to parents who have no experience with gays or gay life. Each child who grows to realize that he or she is “different” has to figure out how to understand that difference, and how to live a rewarding and authentic life–without the help of a parental role model, and often despite parental rejection of that difference.

That’s a heavy burden. The least we can do as a society is not add to it.

Comments

The Legislative Process

Yesterday, the Indianapolis Star ran the second part of Matt Tully’s series on ethics at the Indiana General Assembly, or how a bill really becomes a law.

What struck me most was the irony–the amounts of money spent by vocal proponents of free enterprise and the market economy in pursuit of legislation privileging their positions in that market and/or protecting them against competition. Sunday liquor sales, gaming operations, banking rules, collective bargaining…for a state that  celebrates capitalism, our lawmakers spend an inordinate amount of time picking winners and losers.

Want an example?

Also appearing in yesterday’s paper was a report on a hearing held by the House Utility Committee on the boondoggle known as the Rockport Coal-Gasification plant.

As readers of this blog will recall from previous posts, then-Governor Mitch Daniels entered into a thirty-year deal with Leucadia National Corporation, represented in Indiana by long-time Republican operative and Daniels friend, Mark Lubbers. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Mark Lubbers’ wife Teresa was appointed by Daniels to head up the state’s Commission on Higher Education.) The terms of the deal obligated the state to buy the company’s synthetic gas and resell it on the open market. Indiana ratepayers would get discounts or increases on their bills, depending upon whether the synthetic gas was more or less expensive than gas available on the open market. Seventeen percent of ratepayers’ bills would be tied to the Rockport plant’s rate.

State Senator Doug Eckerty, who opposes the deal, has sponsored a bill that would send the agreement back to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for a full review.

In the committee hearing, Eckerty pointed out that gas prices have plummeted since the plant was first proposed, and that the manufacture of synthetic gas is no longer economically feasible. Coal gasification projects in other states have been abandoned. As he noted, if private sources will not finance these projects, why should taxpayers?

When natural gas prices were high, there was at least a thin justification for a deal that used Indiana ratepayers to guarantee the profits of a private company. Now even that pretense of a public purpose is gone. Mark Lubbers testified that gas prices are volatile, so the plant would protect ratepayers if and when the prices spiked again.

The problem is, whether gas prices rise again is irrelevant. The state should not be picking private-sector winners and losers. I hate to use a sports analogy, but government’s role in the economy is best compared to that of the umpire or referee in a game. When government abandons that role–when it suits up and plays with one of the teams–it is improper. It violates the rules, undermines the sport, and makes cynics of the onlookers.

It’s no different when the game is the free market.

Comments

Prognosticating and the Supremes

As any lawyer will attest, predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases is foolhardy in the extreme. But I’ve never let the prospect of making a fool of myself stop me, so I’m going to go out on a limb and do just that.

Yesterday, as practically everyone within earshot of a news report knows, the Court heard the first of two important cases on marriage equality. Yesterday’s arguments dealt with the appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision striking down California’s Proposition Eight; today’s will center on the constitutionality of DOMA, the “Defense of Marriage” Act.

I expect the Court to strike down DOMA, which–among other things–allows the federal government to treat marriages recognized by different states differently. Throughout our history, laws governing marriage have been the province of state governments. DOMA allows the federal government to treat legally married citizens from some states very differently than legally married citizens from other states. I expect the Court to follow its own ample precedents on federalism and equal protection; I’m pretty confident DOMA will fall.

That said, the betting in legal quarters on Proposition 8 has always favored a Court cop-out.

When the Justices asked for briefing on the issue of standing, most lawyers following the case saw that as a signal that they were looking for a way to dispose of the case on procedural grounds, that they were looking for a way to avoid ruling on the merits of the question whether marriage–which the Court has repeatedly ruled is a “fundamental right”–must be made available to gay citizens as well as straight ones.

As disappointing as it would be to have the Court sidestep that question, a decision to the effect that only the Governor and Attorney General of California had standing to appeal the judgment (or a ruling that review had been “improvidently granted”) would have the effect of reinstating the lower court’s decision. Although such a decision would affect only California, that state has some 11% of the population of the U.S. The number of citizens living in states with marriage equality would grow dramatically, adding to the pressures that are already mounting elsewhere.

As numerous observers have noted, in the absolute worst-case scenario, the Court’s decisions in these cases can only slow the inevitable. Same-sex marriage will be a national reality within the next few years, with or without the Court’s assistance. A decision containing a ringing affirmation of equality would be lovely, but its absence will not alter the eventual result.

So there you have my predictions. I hope I’m wrong about Proposition 8, but given the questions thrown at the litigants during yesterday’s arguments, I doubt it.

At this point, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Comments